2
0

Tax overhaul deal sweetens for working class


 invite response                
2017 Dec 14, 9:07am   14,464 views  75 comments

by Shaman   ➕follow (4)   💰tip   ignore  

Notably:
$10,000 in state income tax eligible for write-off so no double taxation for most people.
Mortgage interest write-offs up to $750,000 mortgages.
Property tax deduction.
Possibly child tax credit even higher than the previously proposed $2000

The corporate tax rate may be greater than 20% to compensate.

Oh and Murkowski got them to open ANWR to oil development as a requirement for her vote.

Let’s just hope McCain doesn’t resurrect himself to fuck this one up!

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570509509/gop-lawmakers-agree-on-final-tax-package-hatch-says


#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 75       Last »     Search these comments

2   Strategist   2017 Dec 14, 9:31am  

Quigley says
Notably:
$10,000 in state income tax eligible for write-off so no double taxation for most people.
Mortgage interest write-offs up to $750,000 mortgages.
Property tax deduction.
Possibly child tax credit even higher than the previously proposed $2000

The corporate tax rate may be greater than 20% to compensate.


I think that's fair. It will be a good thing.
3   anonymous   2017 Dec 14, 9:35am  

Sweet lets get it done
4   anonymous   2017 Dec 14, 9:36am  

That $10,000 is for LAST combined, which includes income and property. Please consider editing your post to reflect that. It doesn't help all that much when CA income tax and property taxes are much higher than $10,000.

The bigger deal seems to be the brackets. The Senate ones were much more favorable to the middle class than the House ones. We don't know where they'll end up, and the details aren't being released until tomorrow.
5   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 14, 9:42am  

anon_b9053 says
That $10,000 is for LAST combined, which includes income and property. Please consider editing your post to reflect that. It doesn't help all that much when CA income tax and property taxes are much higher than $10,000.

The bigger deal seems to be the brackets. The Senate ones were much more favorable to the middle class than the House ones. We don't know where they'll end up, and the details aren't being released until tomorrow.


Yep, too early to celebrate for CA residents. The devil is in the details and details are not fully known.
6   Shaman   2017 Dec 14, 10:12am  

Hmm, yes my property taxes are more than 8k anyway so ...
hope they figure this out.
7   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 14, 10:15am  

Quigley says
Hmm, yes my property taxes are more than 8k anyway so ...
hope they figure this out.


... which leaves only $2K for SIT deduction, so ....
8   WookieMan   2017 Dec 14, 10:26am  

Not an accountant, but if I understand things correctly, the $10k cap doesn't even come into play until you itemize. So if you haven't itemized over $24k in the past, this really doesn't matter. But let's say you itemize $24k in other things, you'll still get the $10k on the state income/property taxes, $34k essentially. But if you only itemize say $14k in mortgage interest and other stuff, but have $20k in state property/income taxes, then the $10k above will be taxable income. Which depending on bracket isn't all that much in the grand scheme of these peoples earnings.

It sucks for a certain segment of the population for sure. Mainly high income, W-2 earners with with big or highly taxed houses. From an economic standpoint, I don't like it because it takes money out of the hands of people that are likely to spend the money in the economy and not hoard it. So this is a negative in the tax plan in my opinion. Kind of a big one for domestic tourism, auto industry, etc. These are the people that buy nice things, but isn't necessarily for the super rich who are buying mega yachts. These people can actually trickle down money in the form of purchases.
9   anonymous   2017 Dec 14, 11:11am  

Wookie - that's correct. The money going to taxes for these UMC people would have been otherwise spent on consumer goods and services.

Reminder: home ownership is one of the largest drivers of the US economy. Furniture, construction, repairs, maintenance, hardware, tools, landscaping, service workers, technology, entertainment, automobiles, toys for the young and old alike, and so on.

It makes very little sense to de-incentivize home owner tax benefits.

Here's an often overlooked point for CA residents: what will Form 540 do on the line that currently states"list your federal deductions"????? This is HUGE.
10   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 14, 11:35am  

Gonna play with the scenario of paying my property taxes for 2018 this year while they are still fully deductible. Afraid the fucking AMT will fuck this idea up, though.

BTW, what about the AMT in the new code? Is it gone?
11   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Dec 14, 11:39am  

My family will still be penalized. Thanks Trump.
12   WookieMan   2017 Dec 14, 11:44am  

I've said it in another thread (maybe this one - too lazy to look). I think this is a wang slap to the high tax (income and/or property) states. Not all, but generally democrat controlled/run.

The people hit the hardest aren't going to fight the Federal government on this. They're going to ask why the fuck are my property taxes so high? Why the fuck does Florida have 0 income taxes and I'm getting fucked in IL, NY, CA, etc? It's almost certain if people fight for these cuts on the state level or county level, they're going to get more money back in their pockets versus the Federal government removing the $10k cap.

If you're into the D and R battle, the R's just came on the D's face with this one if you ask me. Of all the smart ass comments about 4D, 7D, etc chess, this one might actually warrant that description. The R's can say it's technically a tax increase on the wealthy. The D's will go after the new corporate rate. And this thing just slides through without much debate.

In Northern IL where I'm at, there are a ton of high earning Democrats that aren't going to like this when they get their tax return or bill. Because they know the state is run like shit and the taxes collected are wasted for the most part here in IL. Republicans have already been fighting the high taxes. If they join forces, things can change rather quickly. At a minimum, tax increases in state income tax or property taxes are going to be looked at in a whole new light. The days of just passing a tax increase statewide probably just got a lot tougher.
13   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Dec 14, 12:11pm  

WookieMan says
wang slap to the high tax (income and/or property) states

It definitely is. It's also a big FU to Dems who are in Congress serving those States. It's also a big plate of happy for Trump supporters who hate the rich city fucks.
It's not doing/going to do Trump any favors in the suburbs of many states.
14   anonymous   2017 Dec 14, 2:52pm  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Gonna play with the scenario of paying my property taxes for 2018 this year while they are still fully deductible.


I'm thinking the same thing, to get full benefit/deduction. This looks like it might beneficial if you'll be under the $24K standard deduction next year.
15   anonymous   2017 Dec 14, 2:53pm  

I think it's a good overall play for CA, because a lot of taxpayer money goes to lefty lunatic causes and voter purchases through illegal immigrant amnesty and ghetto pimping.

That has to stop to make CA a viable place for the middle class again. My plan is to become way more involved in the state's budget.
16   Shaman   2017 Dec 14, 4:07pm  

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
My family will still be penalized


Good! There should be penalties for voting Leftist!
17   zzyzzx   2017 Dec 15, 9:51am  

I like this change, since I pay very little for property taxes ($1500) and a shitload of state income taxes (>10K). A $10,000 combined limit for the two is fairer and doesn't favor real estate like the previous version did.
18   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Dec 15, 10:05am  

zzyzzx says
I like this change, since I pay very little for property taxes ($1500) and a shitload of state income taxes (>10K). A $10,000 combined limit for the two is fairer and doesn't favor real estate like the previous version did.


WookieMan says
The people hit the hardest aren't going to fight the Federal government on this. They're going to ask why the fuck are my property taxes so high? Why the fuck does Florida have 0 income taxes and I'm getting fucked in IL, NY, CA, etc? It's almost certain if people fight for these cuts on the state level or county level, they're going to get more money back in their pockets versus the Federal government removing the $10k cap.


Bingo!

Why have certain states decided to depreciate the property tax, when it's the most stable form of taxation, far less volatile to swings in the Economy, and by it's very nature is Progressive?
19   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 15, 12:53pm  

anon_b9053 says
I think it's a good overall play for CA, because a lot of taxpayer money goes to lefty lunatic causes and voter purchases through illegal immigrant amnesty and ghetto pimping.

That has to stop to make CA a viable place for the middle class again. My plan is to become way more involved in the state's budget.


Good luck with that: these fucks are already toying with the idea of allowing charitable contributions in lieu of SIT and property taxes. Which will make them fully deductible.

PS. It's still not clear whether AMT for individual taxpayers would be repealed. At least I couldn't find the definitive answer.
20   GNL   2017 Dec 15, 4:54pm  

WookieMan says
Not an accountant, but if I understand things correctly, the $10k cap doesn't even come into play until you itemize. So if you haven't itemized over $24k in the past, this really doesn't matter. But let's say you itemize $24k in other things, you'll still get the $10k on the state income/property taxes, $34k essentially. But if you only itemize say $14k in mortgage interest and other stuff, but have $20k in state property/income taxes, then the $10k above will be taxable income. Which depending on bracket isn't all that much in the grand scheme of these peoples earnings.

It sucks for a certain segment of the population for sure. Mainly high income, W-2 earners with with big or highly taxed houses. From an economic standpoint, I don't like it because it takes money out of the hands of people that are likely to spend the money in the economy and not hoard it. So this is a negative in the tax plan in my opinion. Kind of a big one for domestic tourism, auto industry, etc. ...

Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place? Just so the rich can buy even nicer things?
21   GNL   2017 Dec 15, 4:56pm  

anon_fb813 says
Reminder: home ownership is one of the largest drivers of the US economy. Furniture, construction, repairs, maintenance, hardware, tools, landscaping, service workers, technology, entertainment, automobiles, toys for the young and old alike, and so on.

I agree. Now how do we get more people with lower incomes into houses? Wouldn't that be better then giving it back to those who already own homes?
22   GNL   2017 Dec 15, 4:58pm  

WookieMan says
The days of just passing a tax increase statewide probably just got a lot tougher.

Isn't that a good thing? GET OUT OF IL!!
23   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 15, 5:04pm  

WorkInProgress says
Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?


Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context of FIT reform?
24   anonymous   2017 Dec 15, 8:20pm  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WorkInProgress says
Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?


Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context for FIT reform?


That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?
25   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 15, 10:23pm  

anon_945c8 says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WorkInProgress says
Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?


Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context for FIT reform?


That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?


Yes, there actually is: it's called "refundable tax credits". As in "refund for something you didn't pay".
26   anonymous   2017 Dec 16, 9:35am  

anon_945c8 says
ZERO in Federal taxes


Those same people you refer to pay plenty in social security and medicare, which certainly counts. Especially if you consider that your overlords plan on running up the deficit and taking it away, so that they won't be getting much back on it.

It's subsidizing the tax cuts for the rich.
27   anonymous   2017 Dec 16, 9:38am  

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WorkInProgress says
Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?


Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context of FIT reform?


Keeping it as in higher wages and better benefits for the workers as opposed to huge accumulations of wealth that is supposed to trickle down. Why does it need to go up then back down, especially since people have been waiting 37 years and nothing has trickled down yet.

I'm not talking about government collecting and redistributing socialism. I'm talking about not having crony capitalism where the ultra rich own the government and treat it like their personal source of wealth.
28   anonymous   2017 Dec 16, 9:59am  

Work in Progress - owning a house is not an entitlement. Hence, the lower the income, the less likely it will be to own a house especially in highly desirable locations. There are absolutely no issues with this. That is a market.

The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.
29   GNL   2017 Dec 16, 10:04am  

anon_945c8 says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WorkInProgress says
Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?


Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context for FIT reform?


That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Good point. But, I would counter with...If you need more taxes, where are you going to get it from, the people who have money or those who don't?
30   GNL   2017 Dec 16, 10:09am  

anon_fb813 says
Work in Progress - owning a house is not an entitlement. Hence, the lower the income, the less likely it will be to own a house especially in highly desirable locations. There are absolutely no issues with this. That is a market.

The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.

Where did I say it was an entitlement? Please don't make stuff up.
31   bob2356   2017 Dec 16, 11:28am  

anon_fb813 says
The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.


You believe that somehow rental properties don't pay property taxes? Where do you live that they don't.
32   FortWayne   2017 Dec 16, 11:55am  

Quigley says
Mortgage interest write-offs up to $750,000 mortgages


I feel this one needs to be scaled down a lot. That's like paying wealthy people to buy expensive houses, not right.
33   RWSGFY   2017 Dec 16, 12:09pm  

WorkInProgress says
anon_945c8 says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WorkInProgress says
Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?


Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context for FIT reform?


That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Good point. But, I would counter with...If you need more taxes, where are you going to get it from, the people who have money or those who don't?


So we're clear on the "letting them keep it" part?
34   anonymous   2017 Dec 16, 12:41pm  

anon_08dee says
anon_945c8 saysZERO in Federal taxesThose same people you refer to pay plenty in social security and medicare, which certainly counts.


That wasn't the topic of the OP, stop with the straw man, the OP was about FEDERAL taxes. But since you brought it up, how much medicare/S.S taxes does someone making $20K a year pay versus someone making $100K?

anon_08dee says
It's subsidizing the tax cuts for the rich.


The rich SHOULD get a tax cut, they're the ones actually paying the bills right now. Once again, answer the question, should someone paying ZERO Federal taxes now, get a tax cut?
35   anonymous   2017 Dec 16, 12:41pm  

WorkInProgress says
That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Good point. But, I would counter with...If you need more taxes, where are you going to get it from, the people who have money or those who don't?


How about REDUCING spending to the amount of taxes collected? How's that for a novel idea?

Do you keep writing checks out of your checkbook when the available balance gets to zero? Do you keep ordering products and services knowing you don't have the income to support it?

Are these tough questions?
36   anonymous   2017 Dec 16, 12:41pm  

anon_fb813 says
The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.


Geez.... scary...

bob2356 says
You believe that somehow rental properties don't pay property taxes? Where do you live that they don't.


and these renters vote.... we're screwed...
37   GNL   2017 Dec 16, 1:58pm  

anon_89d64 says
WorkInProgress says
That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Good point. But, I would counter with...If you need more taxes, where are you going to get it from, the people who have money or those who don't?


How about REDUCING spending to the amount of taxes collected? How's that for a novel idea?

Do you keep writing checks out of your checkbook when the available balance gets to zero? Do you keep ordering products and services knowing you don't have the income to support it?

Are these tough questions?

I certainly can agree with you..BUT, tell me when that is going to happen. Bwahahabababa
38   GNL   2017 Dec 16, 2:00pm  

anon_89d64 says
anon_fb813 says
The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.


Geez.... scary...

bob2356 says
You believe that somehow rental properties don't pay property taxes? Where do you live that they don't.


and these renters vote.... we're screwed...

I think there is some truth to that. How, exactly, do you think "disaffected" people are going to vote? What America should REALLY want is widespread prosperity. Human nature is what it is. Are you going to change human nature? Let me ask you this...Is greed less evil than envy? I would say both are bad and are related.
39   bob2356   2017 Dec 16, 3:16pm  

anon_89d64 says
That wasn't the topic of the OP, stop with the straw man, the OP was about FEDERAL taxes. But since you brought it up, how much medicare/S.S taxes does someone making $20K a year pay versus someone making $100K?


The man making 1 million or 10 million pays exactly the same social security as the one making $127k.
40   bob2356   2017 Dec 16, 3:20pm  

anon_89d64 says

How about REDUCING spending to the amount of taxes collected? How's that for a novel idea?


Shall we start with department of defence since it is the biggest spender of tax money? Followed by department of agriculture, as in corporate agriculture welfare.

Comments 1 - 40 of 75       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions